Originally Posted By Nemo88 "It did not turn out well, no. But at the time, Bush was spreading the word that Hussein had nuclear weapons pointed at us and were ready to launch at any moment. That was the impression he was trying to give, anyway. So, in that atmosphere, the most reasonable thing to do probably would be to vote for it. Who would figure Bush to be such a total liar about the thing? You ahve to expect some sort of conccientious duty to the office and for putting our people to war. Unfortunately, Bush had none, and we are stuck with the outcome." ~~~~~~ What a cop out,expert after expert kept saying there was NO evidence Iraq had WMDs,other countries like Russia and France etc kept telling us the same thing. if Hillary did her homework instead of giving Bush his blank check,she would have known that the run up to the Iraq war was a bunch of crock conjured up by the Bush team.it didnt take a genius to figure it out. Look,Hillary voted FOR the Iraq war to score points politically,she thought it was help her run for the presidency and make her look strong on national security. Its as simple as that, the ironic thing is that is backfired on her.
Originally Posted By dsnykid Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the majority of people in the US support this war at the beginning? At least that is how it was portrayed in the media to us from other countries, and when I get more American news on my TV than Canadian, so I don't think I am too off the mark. While I support any soldier that is fighting for their country, i don't always support the war they are fighting in, there was no proof of WMDs, and it seems like everyone knew it except Bush(And I don't think he's THAT much of an idiot), and now that the American economy is tanking, people are looking at the cost of war as the reason for it. Anyone who supported the war politically will have a struggle to convince voters they were doing the right thing, because a large percentage of voters will not look back and say "Yeah, I supported the war at the beginning, but have since changed my views" they will think "Why the hell are we STILL in Iraq at a cost of $250 million a DAY?" and forget that they themselves supported the attacks. While I don't feel Obama can beat McCain, I think the fact that he was not elected at the time of the initial vote for War will work in his favor.
Originally Posted By jonvn "expert after expert kept saying there was NO evidence " Not true. The Bush admin was saying something very different, and they were supposedly experts, too. And they were. They were simply lying. "but didn't the majority of people in the US support this war at the beginning" Yes, I believe so, because of what the Bush people were saying.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 The last thing the Democrats need is another candidate who "voted for the war before he/she voted against it". Hillary is just that,shes similar to John Kerry and it weakens her case. The GOP cant use that card against Obama.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 "While I don't feel Obama can beat McCain" You never know, people also never thought Obama could beat the 'inevitable nominee" Hillary Clinton...and not only is he beating her,but hes out-raising her 2-1.
Originally Posted By dsnykid I never doubted that Obama could beat Clinton... we know who she is and how she works, and most people don't really want another Clinton in the White House. But when November comes, I think you will find that Obama's message of "Now is the time for Change" will fall flat, UNLESS he can put together a coherent plan for change, which I haven't seen from him yet.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 and I dont think people want a 3rd Bush term either,which is exactly what McCain brings to the table.More perpetual war,struggling economy,same old failed Republican policies.I think your going to be surprised just how well Obama will do in November.
Originally Posted By jonvn "don't really want another Clinton in the White House." She probably should have not run.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 Your right JOnvn,Hillary should not have run,I think this presidential run has done alot of damage to her reputation and stature as a politician,as well as Bill Clintons. Obama is inspirational,hes not the generic pandering garbage that Hillary,McCain and the others bring to the table.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Anyone who wants to proudly compare themself or their opinions to Mark Morford's is welcome to it. What a load. Does the man operate in some sort of vacuum? So McCain is going to go racist in the general election? Really? Odd, then, that McCain completely repudiated the ranting screed that was used to introduce him recently, saying that he would not even entertain such nonsense. If it was just posturing, he certainly did posture in a very big way. And where, exactly, have the actual attacks on Obama been fomented? In the big bad ol' GOP camp? Not at all. It's the Clintons that have been stirring the pot. Morford probably only understands what he himself does. So far, there has been no overt attempt to play a race card by McCain and his people. Morford's helpful description of McCain? "...a feisty but fuzzy 71-year-old war hawk whose entire campaign is apparently now being fueled by a giant hunk of Cold War phlegm... [a] musty, patriarchal brand of regurgitated Republicanism... ain't exactly the world's sharpest tack..." Now there's the kind of focused, dispassionate analysis that makes for a master pundit. The only hatred and fear mongering I see here is in this artless and idiotic commentary. Anyone who thinks this is even worthy of further consideration is welcome to it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug P.S. The source for the belief that Iraq had nukes was the UN. Remember? They had weapons inspectors there right up until the eve of the invasion? And who are the phantom "expert after expert" who knew better? Don't make me go back to all those tiresome (and contemporary) statements by basically every thinking person in DC who knew that Iraq had WMDs, was stockpiling biological weapons, and was aggressively pursuing a nuclear program. 'Cause you know I have them loaded up and ready to go.
Originally Posted By Mr X ****"expert after expert kept saying there was NO evidence " Not true. The Bush admin was saying something very different, and they were supposedly experts, too. And they were. They were simply lying. "but didn't the majority of people in the US support this war at the beginning" Yes, I believe so, because of what the Bush people were saying.**** Maybe this is because I was overseas, but I didn't see it this way at all. I recall MANY, MANY people saying that the situation was totally unknown, and that they should allow Blix and the inspectors more time...and I also recall Iraq DENYING they had the weapons and agreeing (reluctantly, to be fair) on further inspections, and it even seemed as though they were becoming more accommodating in order to try and avoid invasion (understandable). And then Bush ignored the vehement objections of many nations of the U.N. and plowed ahead with the invasion. NEVER do I recall hearing any sense of urgency, like "if we don't go in now, they'll attack us" or anything like that.
Originally Posted By Mr X **The source for the belief that Iraq had nukes was the UN. Remember?** I don't remember it that way at all. In fact, I recall most of the U.N. voices calling for restraint and more time for inspections (and the inspectors themselves were calling for more time as well...which they never got). I can't believe this was only a few years ago and already we've got convenient memory disease!
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think this presidential run has done alot of damage to her reputation and stature as a politician" I don't think it hurt her stature. "Does the man operate in some sort of vacuum?" Yes, that's it exactly. A vacuum.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I can't believe this was only a few years ago and already we've got convenient memory disease!" Makes things easier. There were lots of people who protested the war. In SF, there were riots, and all sorts of general left wing idiots did their best to show their anger at Bush by breaking windows at Starbucks. That showed them. But there was a lot of support for the war. And it was popular until people realized what a mess Bush made of it.
Originally Posted By planodisney So only the GOP has an attack machine? I believe the Clinton attack machine is the most legendary of all time. part of the difference however is theat the media will do most of the DNC's work for them. Heck, they have already started in on McCain. Obama gets an absolute free ride from the media, but that wont last. Oh, and by the way, the GOP issued a statement that noone is to be using Obamas middle name. But liberals shouldnt let facts disturb their bias.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I believe the Clinton attack machine is the most legendary of all time." I don't know where this comes from.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Clinton was attacked by the right from the moment he set foot in the White House. By 1994, the democrats had lost control of the house and senate for the first time in decades. And the attacks never stopped. GOP hatred of the Clintons is legendary.
Originally Posted By planodisney Mr. X, your are orgetting that Blix reported back to the U.N. that Sadam wasnt fully cooperating and ouldnt let them into many sites.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And it was popular until people realized what a mess Bush made of it.<< Especially not finding WMDs. When you make the case for war primarily on something like that, only for it to be mistaken, support errodes mighty fast.
